• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
jollyjacktar said:
I watched a bit of the press conference with Gilles Duceppe making his comeback announcement today.  Is it just me, or does he remind you of Professor Severus Snape (albeit with grey hair) of the Harry Potter movies.  That makes me less able to take him seriously.

On a more serious note, I don't recall which polling firm it was on the radio, but the gist of the lead up to their sound bite (which sadly I couldn't stick around to hear fully) was polls are indicating that folks in general are starting to really see the possibility of a NDP government federally with the recent success in Alberta.  That, is somewhat worrying. 

Also, Mulcaire is making noise that he sees a good deal of support for the idea of axing the Senate.  A canny move on Tom's part if you ask me.  Many folks are sick to death, myself included, with the Senate and would not necessarily miss this load of freeloading bastards kicked to the curb.  Both things will be sources of votes to be mined by the dippers.
Until Ontario and Quebec say get rid of the senate it stays.  And they will never get rid of it, especially Quebec.  It would require a round of constitutional wrangling and no one wants that.  It would require a big gift or de-evolution of powers from the Fed to get Quebec onside for a senate removal, and I just don't see it happening.  Senate reform might make it through negotiations though, with elected senators or somesuch.

Modified:  Oh look 10 seconds after I post I find this article that supports my supposition.
 
That may be so, but there will be voters out there who like what Mulcaire is proposing and that will translate into votes for his side.
 
jollyjacktar said:
That may be so, but there will be voters out there who like what Mulcaire is proposing and that will translate into votes for his side.

Which also means fewer votes for the Greens, BQ and Liberals. Given the fairly hard ceiling on CPC voters, all I can say is: Go split that vote Tom!
 
jollyjacktar said:
I watched a bit of the press conference with Gilles Duceppe making his comeback announcement today.  Is it just me, or does he remind you of Professor Severus Snape (albeit with grey hair) of the Harry Potter movies.  That makes me less able to take him seriously.

On a more serious note, I don't recall which polling firm it was on the radio, but the gist of the lead up to their sound bite (which sadly I couldn't stick around to hear fully) was polls are indicating that folks in general are starting to really see the possibility of a NDP government federally with the recent success in Alberta.  That, is somewhat worrying. 

Also, Mulcaire is making noise that he sees a good deal of support for the idea of axing the Senate.  A canny move on Tom's part if you ask me.  Many folks are sick to death, myself included, with the Senate and would not necessarily miss this load of freeloading bastards kicked to the curb.  Both things will be sources of votes to be mined by the dippers.


Which, as our friend Thucydides points out is good news for the Conservatives as it promises to split the progressive anti-CPC vote.

I need to repeat: I have nothing but the best of wishes for the Liberal Party of Canada; I believe it and the CPC are the natural and responsible governing parties and each needs to be ready to relieve the other in power when, inevitably, the other party gets old, stale, corrupt and so on. No matter how far Le Bon Jack Layton and M Mulcair may have pushed and dragged the NDP towards the centre, that party's basic (loony left) political DNA would make it a danger in government. But, for now, I cannot trust the LPC when it has M Trudeau (and Gerald Butts) at the helm ... I think it needs to get a new, grown up leader; so, for the moment, I wish the NDP good fortune in 2015. I believe an NDP minority would be less harmful than a government led by M Trudeau.
 
:facepalm: I'm going to assume this is half my fault and half the internet's fault.

Gents, I was *NOT* making any claims that healthcare spending is being cut. I *wish* it were being cut.

Read what I was responding to:

suffolkowner said:
The provinces don't really have the revenue access that the federal government has unless the federal government were to devolve them constitutionally.

I responded with

The provinces have the same revenue access that the feds have... their own people. The feds can continue to tax Canadians at a federal level and Alberta can continue to tax Albertans at a provincial level.
This was the introduction of a hypothetical, Alberta being the metaphor for provinces.

The only difference would be the feds would lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces would raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are cutting (like healthcare).

Note the emphasis on the word WOULD. This was a hypothetical scenario.

I was trying to explain to suffolkowner how decentralizing would work if it were to happen. The feds would cut revenue and cut spending, while the provinces would raise revenue and spend on whatever social programs their little hearts desire. Healthcare was just an example.

I hope fixing this mistake that has caused this miscommunication clarifies what I meant so that we can move on

The only difference would be the feds would lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces would raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are would be cutting (like healthcare).
 
PuckChaser said:
Try again, federal health transfer payments are nearly doubled for Alberta since 2005. The federal government doesn't provide health services (besides ours), it gives the provinces money to administer the system.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Alberta

I know how the healthcare system works, I even wondered as I typed that if someone was really going to bother correcting that nuance instead of just accepting the point it was demonstrating.

EDIT:

Judging by what you quoted, I realize now that you think I was being literal (that the feds are cutting healthcare) instead of talking about decentralization of services and how it *would* work. I was not. I was addressing a point brought up that provinces don't have the same access to revenue streams as the feds.
 
George Wallace said:
Another Television personality in the Liberal fold, has difficulty answering detailed questions of union endorsement.

Federal Liberal candidate Seamus O’Regan picked up the endorsement of a labour union on Tuesday as he tries to unseat NDP MP Ryan Cleary in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl. But O’Regan was surprisingly unprepared to answer detailed questions about the legislation he’s campaigning against. NTV’s Katie Breen reports:

http://ntv.ca/seamus-oregan-unprepared-to-answer-detailed-questions-after-union-endorsement/

Legit question- When's the last time a journalist turned politician and something positive happened? Duffy, Wallen, Kent, etc... unless we count the last 2 of 3 governors general
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Legit question- When's the last time a journalist turned politician and something positive happened? Duffy, Wallen, Kent, etc... unless we count the last 2 of 3 governors general

It is getting positively scary. 
 
ballz said:
The provinces have the same revenue access that the feds have... their own people. The feds can continue to tax Canadians at a federal level and Alberta can continue to tax Albertans at a provincial level. The only difference would be the feds would lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces would raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are cutting (like healthcare).

Does not the province collect the tax revenues and then pass it on to the Feds??
 
Retired AF Guy said:
Does not the province collect the tax revenues and then pass it on to the Feds??

Your Income Tax does not go to the Province; it goes to the Feds who disperse it to the Provinces.....That or for some reason my Ontario taxes are going to Quebec then back to Ontario.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
Does not the province collect the tax revenues and then pass it on to the Feds??

Someone correct me if I am wrong... Income taxes are collected by the Receiver General of Canada (who operates the treasury), simply to have all the money go to one pot. The CRA then administers the income tax act, and tells the Receiver General how much money to send out to each of the provinces for their share (based on whatever tax rates they had) to the province and how much to send each individual for their refund. If you owe taxes, the CRA tells you to write out a cheque to the Receiver General of Canada. Same idea with GST/PST/HST. It all gets collected by the RG and then the provinces cut is sent to them by the RG.

Things like user fees that the province has put in place (like motor registration) stays within the province.
 
>provide the things the feds are cutting (like healthcare).

I'll guess: you are referring to the end-of-life of Paul Martin's "health accord" (because that's what most writers and pot-stirrers are referring to when they mention "Conservative health care cuts").

If not, disregard what follows - although I look forward to an explanation of what is being cut.

Otherwise, the claim is utter bullsh!t.  The core of the health accord was a formula to increase transfers 6% a year for 10 years.  When the accord expired, the annual increases  had established a new baseline which was to be (and was) retained.  The Liberals set the rate and set the end of life. When the Conservatives took over, they retained the rate, and extended the life for 2 years.  By my understanding of "increase" and "cut", the Conservatives increased funding.  6% a year for 12 years essentially yields a doubling.

Since the end of the accord, the Conservatives proposed to increase funding at the rate of GDP growth, with a 3% floor (generous, considering current rates of GDP growth).  So that is still, by any reasonable understanding of "increase" and "cut", an increase.

What is being called a "cut" is the fact that Martin's brainchild had a termination date, for which - by some peculiar leap of logic apparently sensible only to progressive activists and media hacks - the Conservatives are being blamed.  For the hard of thinking: if the Conservatives had done nothing at all - taken no action whatsoever, laid no hand on no thing - the accord would have terminated.

I am tired of most of the outright lies promulgated by the NDP and their healthcare union brothers and other healthcare activist lickspittles, but really tired of this one.
 
Thomas Mulcair will try to make the Senate an election issue, and he just might succeed ... especially if senators keep acting in ways that make journalist David Akin indignant in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Winnipeg Sun:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/06/10/deafening-disrespect-of-aggrieved-senators
WinnipegSun.png

Deafening disrespect of aggrieved senators

BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

FIRST POSTED: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2015

OTTAWA - It cost $23.5 million. It was 116 pages long. It looked at 80,000 individual expense claims made by 116 senators between 2011 and 2013.

But what was most remarkable about the auditor general report on senate spending this week was the sheer indignant tone.

Not the auditor general, mind you. No, Michael Ferguson was measured, careful, patient, and respectful.

The indignant tone was entirely from the 30 senators who had been fingered by Ferguson for allegedly fleecing us.

They were dismissive of Ferguson’s findings and haughty in their huffings and puffing.

And they play a starring role in Ferguson’s official report where each got 500 words worth of rope which most used to hang themselves.

Just who did Michael Ferguson think he was anyhow, they collectively harrumphed.

“I do not agree with the conclusions reached in this audit,” Senator Colin Kenny wrote in his response. Kenny (a Liberal) and Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu (a Conservative) are one of two sitting senators whose claims Ferguson has specifically flagged as RCMP-worthy.

Kenny is indignant that Ferguson’s auditors could not understand the $35,549 he is accused of misspending was all in support of writing vital newspaper columns, copies of which he clipped out and made ready for the AG’s inspection.

Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, who retired from the Senate in 2012, is shocked that Ferguson’s team “deliberately refuses to consider the particular features of both my work as an Acadian senator and the expense claims that I submitted.” Those claims total $110,051 and you should pay them, she contends, because she’s special.

Retired Senator Don Oliver — or “Dr. Oliver” as he refers to himself in his official response even though he is a professional lawyer and, so far as anyone knows, is not a licensed physician — spent $48,008 flying himself and his spouse to all sorts of events that were not even closely related to parliamentary business, but noted proudly that his expenses were “far below what the Senator was permitted to claim.” Doesn’t Ferguson realize how blessed we were to have “Dr.” Oliver as one of our senators.

Moreover, Oliver went on to say, what Ferguson’s team said about his wife in the audit — she got flown around on our dime too — is “scurrilous and irrelevant.”

And in some weird parting shot at Ferguson — a white guy from New Brunswick — Oliver would like to remind us that all his expenses were incurred promoting diversity issues “as the first Black man appointed to the Senate of Canada.”

I’m pretty sure the expense rules are the same for black, white, male, female, Acadian, Lutheran, or Martian senators.

Gerry St. Germain, a retired Conservative, told Ferguson’s team that he took “these apparent accusations to be a defamatory affront to my personal integrity.” St. Germain is accused of making $67,588 worth of inappropriate expense claims.

Marie-Paule Charette Poulin was imperious in silence. Ferguson had fingered her for $131,434 in questionable claims. She refused to answer any of Ferguson’s questions about the claims and was the only one who provided no response to his findings. It was the kind of complete silence that is deafening disrespect to every taxpayer.

Later, to reporters, Ferguson was undeterred. He will insist the RCMP probe the spending of Kenny, Boisvenu, St. Germain, Oliver, Losier-Cool and four others. And, then we’ll see who has a right to be indignant.


I think that abolishing the Senate is a non-starter; I'm sure M Mulcair knows that ... but he can fan the flames of Canadians' (not just David Akin's) outrage for quite a while, and to good (political) effect.

I suspect the Clerk and a small battalion of Constitutional scholars are looking for ways to satisfy the letter of the Supremes' ruling: to have a Constitutional agreement on Senate reform, but without opening the entire Constitution for negotiation.
 
Mr Mulcair will take that bone and run with it a long way while doing some excellent (in his eyes) credibility damage to both parties.  They have plenty of chickens that could come home to roost and Tom's going to build a gigantic coop to house them all.  Here in Atlantic Canada, the CPC is pretty well toast and the Dippers are making amazing headway into Liberal territory.  I believe they will pick up a few more seats in October.

As you say, ER, he might not be able to do anything about the Senate in practicality but he is going to fan the flames into as big a bondfire of the vanities as he can which will to some extent cut into both of the other guys territories.
 
Brad Sallows said:
although I look forward to an explanation of what is being cut.

Otherwise, the claim is utter bullsh!t.
\

I posted a response to this last night and couldn't figure out why it wasn't here. Turns out I accidentally modified my other post when I was trying to quote it. Anyway, here is the response I was trying to post (unfortunately my original post that has raised your concern is now FUBAR'd):

:facepalm: I'm going to assume this is half my fault and half the internet's fault.

Gents, I was *NOT* making any claims that healthcare spending is being cut. I *wish* it were being cut.

Read what I was responding to:

suffolkowner said:
The provinces don't really have the revenue access that the federal government has unless the federal government were to devolve them constitutionally.

I responded with

The provinces have the same revenue access that the feds have... their own people. The feds can continue to tax Canadians at a federal level and Alberta can continue to tax Albertans at a provincial level.
This was the introduction of a hypothetical, Alberta being the metaphor for provinces.

The only difference would be the feds would lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces would raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are cutting (like healthcare).

Note the emphasis on the word WOULD. This was a hypothetical scenario.

I was trying to explain to suffolkowner how decentralizing would work if it were to happen. The feds would cut revenue and cut spending, while the provinces would raise revenue and spend on whatever social programs their little hearts desire. Healthcare was just an example.

I hope fixing this mistake that has caused this miscommunication clarifies what I meant so that we can move on

The only difference would be the feds would lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces would raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are would be cutting (like healthcare).
 
Brad Sallows said:
Canada Health Transfer.

Not to be confused with Canada Social Transfer or Equalization payments.

And: the Conservatives have done a lot to restore/increase various transfers since the  (necessary, Liberal) cuts to eliminate the budget deficit.  It would be refreshing if those who complained long and loud when the cuts were made would simply keep their mouths shut if they are unwilling to say "thank you".

Complain long and loud about cuts? Have you read any of my posts prior to this? I wish the cuts were deeper. I would like to see the Canada Health Act scrapped and the federal government have *nothing* to do with healthcare, just like the Constitution laid out, prior to Trudeau Sr. using the Canada Health Act to undermine the constitution and *steal* that power from the provinces.
 
Although I have some quibbles with the health act, it isn't fair to say the feds stole anything.  What they did was say "here is some money, provided you do the following".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top